Conservation of energy

[The Tanager]

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You seem confused the two interpretations aren't the same, yet have happily agreed to interpreting them both as such, amigo brah.

All looked the same to me.

In scenario one, the universe just appears. Poof! Everything that underwent inflation just appears at the moment of inflation. That's the impression I'm getting when I hear this "begins to exist" phrasing from what you understand the big bang theory conveys. You're agreeing with this, by the way.

Because that is pretty much what the theory entails.

In scenario two, the big bang is an event in the universe's history; is, in fact, the furthest rearward boundary we can extrapolate to responsibly. It does not entail any poofing, only attempts to describe the transition of the mass/energy during inflation. You can, and should, infer the mass/energy to have been already available to undergo said event, and would therefore not match up with scenario number one. You have agreed to this interpretation as well, though.

Oh ok, I see.

So again I ask. Which scenario are you referring to when you use the language "began to exist?"

By "began to exist", I am referring to an effect of which owes its origins to an external cause.

As there is no consensus in contemporary cosmology, telling me you appeal to it is not only unhelpful, but irrelevant until you pick who said what.

There is a consensus among contemporary cosmology that the universe (our universe) began to exist. In fact, since the big bang theory, the field of cosmology has a long history of attempting to explain this beginning (steady state theory / oscillating theory) because of the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the finitude of the universe.

Some are so desperate (Lawrence Krauss), that they've even resorted to irrationality: "A universe from nothing" (again, Lawrence Krauss).

So get with the program.

[Inigo Montoya]

You seem confused the two interpretations aren't the same, yet have happily agreed to interpreting them both as such, amigo brah.

All looked the same to me.

In scenario one, the universe just appears. Poof! Everything that underwent inflation just appears at the moment of inflation. That's the impression I'm getting when I hear this "begins to exist" phrasing from what you understand the big bang theory conveys. You're agreeing with this, by the way.

Because that is pretty much what the theory entails.

In scenario two, the big bang is an event in the universe's history; is, in fact, the furthest rearward boundary we can extrapolate to responsibly. It does not entail any poofing, only attempts to describe the transition of the mass/energy during inflation. You can, and should, infer the mass/energy to have been already available to undergo said event, and would therefore not match up with scenario number one. You have agreed to this interpretation as well, though.

Oh ok, I see.

So again I ask. Which scenario are you referring to when you use the language "began to exist?"

By "began to exist", I am referring to an effect of which owes its origins to an external cause.

As there is no consensus in contemporary cosmology, telling me you appeal to it is not only unhelpful, but irrelevant until you pick who said what.

There is a consensus among contemporary cosmology that the universe (our universe) began to exist. In fact, since the big bang theory, the field of cosmology has a long history of attempting to explain this beginning (steady state theory / oscillating theory) because of the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the finitude of the universe.

Some are so desperate (Lawrence Krauss), that they've even resorted to irrationality: "A universe from nothing" (again, Lawrence Krauss).

So get with the program.

That was a lot of words and sass to yet again fail to provide a direct answer. You have now claimed to understand both scenarios, but fail to pick one. Instead you invent a choice that says "By "began to exist", I am referring to an effect of which owes its origins to an external cause."

So let's ask again, point blank, since while you seem to understand the two choices, you opted to carefully word a third.

What is your understanding? That the universe was already present and in a different configuration when it underwent its inflation event, OR that the mass/energy just simply appeared at the moment of the inflation event?

And from where in contemporary cosmology do you get this "owing to an external cause?"

[For_The_Kingdom]

That was a lot of words and sass to yet again fail to provide a direct answer. You have now claimed to understand both scenarios, but fail to pick one. Instead you invent a choice that says "By "began to exist", I am referring to an effect of which owes its origins to an external cause."

So let's ask again, point blank, since while you seem to understand the two choices, you opted to carefully word a third.

What is your understanding? That the universe was already present and in a different configuration when it underwent its inflation event, OR that the mass/energy just simply appeared at the moment of the inflation event?

Well, let me put it to you this way: I believe that natural reality (the universe) did not exist until God created it.

Is that better?

And from where in contemporary cosmology do you get this "owing to an external cause?"

That part isn't contemporary cosmology, that part is common sense with a sprinkle of good ole fashioned philosophy.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 53 by For_The_Kingdom]

 I believe that natural reality (the universe) did not exist until God created it. 

Very good. Very rigorous. It's a good thing you wandered into the science subforum with that.

I wonder if you're aware that all you've ever really tried to say, whether it's on the rise of consciousness from presumably unconscious material, or on the beginning of life from a non-living material, or on the state of the universe at or near inflation, is that you don't comprehend how it can be the case naturally, so poof! God.

Nearly all your arguments can be pared down to "I don't know how X came to be, therefore God."

There's a term for that.

[DeMotts]

That part isn't contemporary cosmology, that part is common sense with a sprinkle of good ole fashioned philosophy.

Common sense would then dictate that god has an external cause as well then, correct?

[Danmark]

I believe that natural reality (the universe) did not exist until God created it.

You might as well say, "I believe in unicorns" or "I believe in nonsense, that fiction is more real than fact." Your beliefs are immaterial. Arguments and the underlying facts that support arguments are what is at issue on this forum.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 55 by DeMotts]

You are correct.
As soon as the words "caused" and "uncaused" were defined into the argument, it created a fallacy and paradox, best removed by realizing the argument using the words, is specious.
They created an argument where the answer was the uncaused, and defined God as uncaused.
They just didn't understand reality when they did it.

It is an approach common to Judeo-Christianity:
Take inventing the concept of sin. Create a debt of sin, that can't be expiated, but only forgiven by a sock-puppet demi-god.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I believe that natural reality (the universe) did not exist until God created it.

You might as well say, "I believe in unicorns" or "I believe in nonsense, that fiction is more real than fact."

"I believe that inanimate life can come to life and talk to me, but believing in God is nonsense".

Yeah, ok.

Your beliefs are immaterial.

So are yours.

Arguments and the underlying facts that support arguments are what is at issue on this forum.

Right..so what are you underlying facts that support the argument that inanimate life came to life and began to talk? I will wait.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 58 by For_The_Kingdom]

How many times will you expose your God of the gaps logic?


We get that you don't understand how presumably inanimate matter gave rise to life. Guess what? No one else really understands that either.

But for you to use that ignorance as a means to instead leap to "So God must have done it" is not only faulty reasoning, but of no value in a science subforum.

How many times will you take a God-wins-by-default approach when you run into any of the universe's mysteries we're still working on?

[Clownboat]

I believe that natural reality (the universe) did not exist until God created it.

You might as well say, "I believe in unicorns" or "I believe in nonsense, that fiction is more real than fact."

"I believe that inanimate life can come to life and talk to me, but believing in God is nonsense".

Yeah, ok.

Never seen a baby grow up to become a person that you can talk to? You yourself are one such example, therefore I do not understand this mocking tone of yours nor where it comes from.
Like has been explained, what you choose to believe is immaterial.

Your beliefs are immaterial.

So are yours.

Aren't you the only one here arguing from beliefs though?

Arguments and the underlying facts that support arguments are what is at issue on this forum.

Right..so what are you underlying facts that support the argument that inanimate life came to life and began to talk? I will wait.

I assume you don't think babies are popped into existence by the gods. I trust you understand that each and everyone of us here are just a collection of inanimate materials that have organized and can now communicate. Notice how this does not require an argument from belief?

You are trying to level a playing field that is clearly not level IMO.